Gangland violence 'out of control' John Swinney is told
The First Minister was challenged about justice policy following the killing of two Scottish drug gang leaders in Spain.
Eddie Lyons jnr and Ross Mnaghan were shot dead at a bar in Fuengirola last Saturday night.
READ NEXT: Glasgow's drug consumption centre is working says health secretary
At First Minister's Questions, Conservative leader, Russell Findlay, said gangs have been allowed to operate as 'the Scottish Parliament has failed to tackle organised Crime'
He branded the gang leaders parasites and cowards and highlighted policing and sentencing policy that he claimed led to a failure to tackle the problem.
Findlay said: 'Two Scottish drug dealers have now been shot dead in Spain.'
Referring to the ongoing, decades long, feud between the rival Daniel and Lyons gangs in Glasgow, he said: 'Their gang has waged a turf war on Scotland's streets since the dawn of devolution.
'And this has mutated to include proxy groups, including the US US-sanctioned Kinahan cartel.
'These parasites grow rich by preying on societies most vulnerable, these cowards cause terror and death with guns, knives and firebombs.
'These thugs go after journalists, politicians, businessmen, police and prison officers.
'Organised Crime is out of control and communities are living in fear.'
READ NEXT: 'Don't blame us': Taxis hit back in Glasgow city centre transport row
Findlay said police numbers have been cut by almost 1000, Under 25 sentencing guidelines are part of the problem and proceeds of crime law failed to recover the rtrue wealth drug dealers accumulate.
He said police say 'Organised crime groups' are 'coercing young and vulnerable people to carry out some of these crimes because they are under reduced risk of imprisonment.'
On Proceeds of crime, he added: 'According to the Crown Office, one drug dealer made £126m but they can only find £118,000 of assets' and called for a review.
The First Minister said the government and justice authorities were tackling organised crime, which he said was 'intolerable' and 'unacceptable'.
He said he did not agree it was 'out of control' and said , 'Tt requires the forensic attention of our police and criminal justice authorities to tackle it and that is being undertaken within Scotland on a relentless basis.'
Swinney said there were 'flaws' with Findlay's arguments.
He said: 'There are a high number of organised crime participants who are currently incarcerated for a very long time in the jails of Scotland, contributing to the significant congestion that is in our prison system just now.'
On sentencing, he said he could not allow the remarks to stand.
He said:' It is misleading to say to the public there are no consequences for criminal activity under the age of 25.
'There are very serious consequences which involve imprisonment.'
He added: 'Scottish Crime Campus is viewed across the world as one of the most innovative and successful measures of bringing together all of the intelligence gathering in one place.
And he said: 'It has to be acknowledged that the criminal justice authorities have been successful in apprehending, imprisoning, interrupting and disrupting organised crime in this country.
'That will be sustained in the years to come.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
29 minutes ago
- New Statesman
How Donald Trump plunged America into a blind war
Photo by Daniel Torok/The White House via Getty Images One minute after midnight on 21 June, a small group of US B-2 Spirit bombers took off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri heading west across the Pacific. They were picked up shortly afterwards by flight tracking accounts on social media, prompting breaking news alerts that multiple American bombers capable of carrying the type of heavy ordinance that would be needed to destroy Iran's nuclear sites were airborne as journalists frantically traced their trajectory. In fact, this was a decoy. The real strike group was flying east across the Atlantic, with seven B-2 bombers joined by US fighter jets as they reached the Middle East, which escorted them into Iranian airspace. In the early hours of 22 June local time, they dropped a total of 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), 30,000-pound guided bombs known as 'bunker busters', on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo and Natanz. A US Navy submarine fired more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles at a third site in Isfahan as part of what the Pentagon called 'Operation Midnight Hammer'. By now, most people will have seen Donald Trump's address to the nation in the hours that followed, flanked by his distinctly uncomfortable-looking vice-president JD Vance along with secretary-of-state-turned-national-security-adviser Marco Rubio and defence secretary Pete Hegseth. Trump, predictably, pronounced the whole operation a 'spectacular military success', declaring that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated', which he could not possibly have known at the time and has yet to be confirmed. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' Trump intoned. 'If they do not, future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier.' Appearing to veer from his script towards the end, he added, 'I want to just say, we love you, God.' In the best-case scenario for those who support these strikes, Trump has acted decisively, ordering the use of military force where successive previous presidents had equivocated, and setting back the Iranian nuclear programme for years, perhaps even for good. He has finally neutered a regime that has long been defined by its rallying cry, 'Death to America', and delivered Israel from the existential threat that would have been posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, which one former Iranian president is said to have described as a 'one-bomb country'. According to this rendering, Trump has taken advantage of a moment of profound weakness for Tehran, whose most notorious proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, have been eviscerated by the Israeli military campaign over the last 18 months, and whose most senior military commanders and nuclear scientists have been assassinated. He has forced a reckoning for the Iranian regime – that will be quietly welcomed by many in the region and beyond – abandon your nuclear ambitions, or cease to exist. In the process, he has also proved the TACO theory (Trump Always Chickens Out) wrong. Perhaps some even see him delivering on his election campaign mantra that he would deliver 'peace through strength'. This is all, theoretically, possible. We should be clear, less than 24 hours at the time of writing from the US strikes, that nobody – not Trump, not the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and not Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei – knows for certain where this will lead, or how this war will end. (Trump has already called it a 'war' on social media.) But the history of recent US military campaigns in the region does not bode well. The exception often noted is the first Gulf War in 1991, where the coalition military effort known as Operation Desert Storm lasted than two months and succeeded in forcing Saddam Hussein to withdraw his troops from Kuwait, although the Iraqi dictator was permitted to remain in power. The problem with the optimistic case this time is, to quote the former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the subsequent invasion of Iraq, the 'known unknowns', and the 'unknown unknowns'. In the short term, the known unknowns include what capabilities Iran retains to retaliate, both in terms of its proxies abroad (including the Houthis in Yemen and militias in Iraq), the remaining stockpiles of missiles and drones in Iran, which Israel has repeatedly targeted in recent days, and its ability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, where almost a third of the world's seaborne oil transits. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Ayatollah Khamenei, who is 86 and said to be in faltering health, is reportedly sheltering in a bunker, according to the New York Times, avoiding electronic devices for fear of revealing his location and communicating only through a trusted aide, where he has listed several clerics who could replace him if he is killed, along with substitutes for the military chain of command. We do not yet know how Khamenei will respond to these attacks and whether he will assess – as many commentators have insisted – that he must now retaliate in some meaningful form if he hopes to restore Iran's deterrence and remain in power. We do not know whether Tehran can be induced to resume negotiations on a nuclear deal with Washington, as many European leaders have now urged. We do know, however, that Iran had previously negotiated a nuclear deal – known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – with the United States, the UK, France, China, Russia, and the EU in 2015, which Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. It is not clear that any Iranian government would entrust its future to a new deal that could be similarly torn up by the next US administration. (Trump has also launched trade wars against Canada, Mexico and China since returning to power despite signing much-hyped trade deals with them during his previous term.) Meanwhile, the example of the Kim dynasty in North Korea, which has pursued nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them despite the significant costs, and is not currently being bombed by the US, might well suggest to the Iranian regime that the surer course for survival would have been to race for a bomb while it still could, and, if it has the opportunity, to try again. We also know that despite the repeated messaging via US backchannels in the hours after the strike that this was a 'one-and-done' operation – a limited campaign to target the nuclear facilities and nothing more, certainly not the prelude to regime change – Trump and Netanyahu have delivered starkly contradictory signals. Netanyahu openly urged the Iranian people to 'stand up' against the regime after launching the Israeli military campaign on 13 June. Trump has demanded 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' from Iran on social media and threatened to kill Khamenei. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change???' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on the evening of 22 June. 'MIGA!!!' Given these statements, it is not hard to see why the Iranian government might conclude that the US and Israel have, in fact, launched a war that aims to overthrow them, and, therefore, that this is not merely a negotiating ploy that could yet end in a new nuclear deal, but an existential fight that justifies any means. Then there are the unknown unknowns. We do not know, for instance, whether there could be other Iranian nuclear facilities that had not yet been identified, and what steps the regime might have taken to ensure the survival of key personnel, equipment and material. We do not know how secure the regime's grip on power is and whether Khamenei could yet be sidelined, or simply replaced, by hardliners from within the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or former high-ranking officials. 'Tehran is now full of such plots,' one anonymous source, who claimed to be part of a plan to replace the ageing supreme leader, told The Atlantic after the strikes. 'Everybody knows Khamenei's days are numbered.' If the regime does fall, it is far from clear what type of government would take its place, and what that would mean for the region, and well beyond. Recent examples – such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria – suggest liberal democracy is an unlikely outcome. 'The US is now entangled in a new conflict, with prospects of a ground operation looming on the horizon,' taunted Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and current deputy chair of the country's security council, who is now probably best known for his bellicose social media threats. He then claimed that a 'number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.' (It is worth bearing in mind that his main role these days seems to be garnering attention and provocative headlines.) With the Russian military tied down in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin is unlikely to offer much in the way of meaningful help in the short term, but he will certainly capitalise on what appears to be a flagrant breach of international law and what he will present as yet more evidence of American hypocrisy. (Putin, too, claims to have attacked Ukraine in part to stop the country developing nuclear weapons and threatening Russia's national security.) Moscow also stands to benefit from a rise in the price of oil if Iran threatens the Strait of Hormuz or targets other oil-producing facilities in the region. Beijing has strongly condemned the US attack, which the foreign ministry said, 'seriously violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law'. China is Iran's largest trading partner, which supplied around 15 percent of the oil the country imported last year, and will not welcome the prospect of a massive spike in oil prices if the conflict escalates at a time when the Chinese economy is already slowing. But the prospect of the US getting drawn into another interminable war in the Middle East and deferring, yet again, the mythical 'pivot to Asia', with its focus on deterring a Chinese assault on Taiwan, offers other potential benefits to Beijing. The reverberations of Trump's gamble will be felt far beyond the borders of Iran. Flanked by Vance, Rubio, and Hegseth as he delivered his speech in the hours after the attack, the impression was less a show of unity than a president who is keenly aware of the domestic political risk this involves – and the vehement opposition already emanating from parts of his Maga base – and determined to show that his top lieutenants were all on board. Perhaps that was why Vance in particular, who has built his political brand on his opposition to US military intervention overseas, looked so perturbed. Trump has plunged the US into a war with Iran, with no apparent strategy, and objectives that appear to be evolving, in real time, on social media. Maybe the best-case scenario will yet transpire, and the Middle East will emerge from this conflict more stable and prosperous, but recent history cautions against too much optimism. [See also: The British left will not follow Trump into war] Related
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
University of the West of Scotland staff ballot for strikes
The University of the West of Scotland (UWS) branch of the Educational Institute of Scotland University Lecturers' Association (EIS ULA) opened a statutory strike ballot on Monday, June 23, in response to the university's refusal to guarantee no compulsory redundancies under its Organisational Change Project (OCP). The ballot will close at noon on Tuesday, July 22. READ MORE: 22 powerful images showing thousands marching in Glasgow to support refugees Garry Ross, EIS National Officer for Higher Education, said: "It is deeply regrettable that the University of the West of Scotland has chosen to make this large number of job cuts and pushed staff to the point of balloting for strike action. "The proposed redundancies are a short-sighted and damaging strategy that will have a devastating impact on the livelihoods of dedicated staff, many of whom have worked at UWS for years. "Furthermore, it will inevitably lead to a decline in the academic provision, research capacity, and overall student experience at the university. "We urge UWS to step back from this path and engage meaningfully with the EIS ULA to secure a no-compulsory-redundancy guarantee." READ MORE: Council reprimanded by watchdog over delays affecting abuse survivors The ballot follows ongoing disputes with university management over the OCP, which includes plans to cut 75.2 full-time equivalent academic posts. The union has raised concerns about transparency and consultation during the process, lodging a formal dispute in March. EIS ULA argues that compulsory redundancies threaten job security, academic standards, and research at UWS. The union said it has a strong mandate for industrial action following a previous consultative ballot that showed broad support for a strike if redundancy guarantees were not provided. READ MORE: Work begins on 'major' school expansion to increase capacity by 500 pupils Members are determined to protect jobs and maintain the university's role within the Scottish higher education sector. EIS ULA is urging UWS management to re-enter negotiations and work towards an agreement that avoids compulsory job losses and safeguards the institution's future. The union said it remains committed to finding a negotiated solution but is prepared to take strike action if necessary to protect its members and academic standards. UWS has been approached for comment.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Our industrial decline gives a lie to Better together claims
The collateral damage has been massive with whole communities, dependent on these jobs, being virtually abandoned. The subsequent social damage is all too obvious with the skilled jobs that sustained previous generations being replaced by a gig economy characterised by short-term, poorly-paid and often unskilled work. The consequences are there in plain sight – growing levels of poverty, lengthening queues at food banks and the scandal of children going to school poorly clothed and hungry. Of course, a healthy economy depends to a certain extent on inward investment but over the last decades the ownership of a whole host of British companies has moved overseas. Scotland has been hit particularly hard with the loss of control over our once-famous banking and finance sectors. Scottish Power and SSE are largely owned by Iberdola and a Qatari investment company. While foreign capital investment must be welcomed, it brings with it the constant threat of closures and asset-stripping. Regrettably however, it is not just our industrial and financial sectors that have been taken over but vast sections of our utilities and public services as well. In a famous speech in 1964, Harold Wilson slammed the Tories for glorying in a country "where the rewards go to land racketeers and property spivs". It was Neil Kinnock who described the then Conservative government's privatisation policies as "selling off the family silver". However successive governments both Tory and Labour have overseen vast swathes of our public services falling into private hands. So, for example, there are now 27 separate rail companies operating in England and Wales and 10 water companies. The long-suffering public have experienced worsening standards of service and ever-mounting costs while huge bonuses and dividends are being paid out to bosses and shareholders. What makes the situation even worse is that the Government pays out vast sums in subsidies to these failing companies. When you consider that in England large sections of welfare, care, probation, prisons, schools and even the NHS are now in private hands then it is no wonder that our national debt continues to soar while public complaints about failing standards rocket. Is this really the future promised by the Better Together campaign? Eric Melvin, Edinburgh. Read more letters Indy would mean 'normal' politics John NE Rankin (Letters, June 20) is obviously a stickler for accuracy. He castigates attributing the "ongoing ferry shambles" to Calmac rather than Caledonian Marine Assets Ltd and, ultimately in Mr Rankin's opinion, the SNP Government. He cannot then resist taking a swipe at supporters of this government, which he says "could not run a country". Whether or not the SNP could successfully run an independent Scotland is a matter of opinion. What is a matter of fact, however, is that Mr Rankin's opinion of the SNP would be tested by the Scottish electorate in all subsequent elections post-independence. The SNP would stand or fall on its record of government alone. In other words, we would have "normal" politics where voting would be dominated by the same concerns as every other Western European democracy. And, oh yes, the Scottish electorate would not have its near neighbour's choice imposed on it by sheer weight of numbers. David S McCartney, Forres. Make Scotland a beacon for peace Watching the latest developments in the Middle East war from Scotland can make you feel depressed and powerless. Yet Scotland is involved, and should be taking a strong stance against the war. Firstly Scotland is acting as a staging post for the US bombing missions in Iran and their assistance to Israel's war. Prestwick Airport, which is owned by the Scottish Government, has seen large numbers of US war plans landing and being refuelled on their way to wage war on Iran and to assist the Israeli war effort. It's time the Scottish Government closed this route for war by banning US warplanes at Prestwick. Secondly if this war in the Middle East extends to a global war Scotland's nuclear base at Faslane will be the number one target for attack and if it's hit then much of Glasgow will disappear surely it's time that this expensive and ineffective nuclear base was closed. Thirdly Scottish arms industries are supplying the Israeli war machines with vital spare parts and it's time this was ended. Of course I realise that none of this can be achieved while Scotland is part of the UK and where Keir Starmer's Labour Government is guilty of failing to condemn Israel for genocide in Gaza or the US for its warlike interventions' instead they are grovelling to Donal Trump in the hope of crumbs from his table. Support for Scottish independence has reached a new high of 56% recently. Now let's turn that into a pro-independence majority in the Scottish elections next year. If that happens the Scottish Parliament should declare our independence and end our complicity in war and instead make Scotland a beacon for peace in the world. Hugh Kerr, Edinburgh. • I'm an idiot. I admit it. I believed Donald Trump when he said before his election that there would be no more of America's endless wars far from America's shores. Instead he has thrown in his lot with America's triad of evil – the military industrial complex, the Neocons, and the powerful Israeli lobby. Benjamin Netanyahu, facing three charges of corruption at home, has achieved his long-held ambition of bringing the United States into a war with Iran. Trump promised to end the war in Ukraine. He hasn't. He promised to bring peace to the Middle East. He hasn't. Instead he has continued with his country's history of bombing countries and killing thousands. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Vietnam. Cambodia. Laos. Iraq. Somalia. Libya. Syria. Yemen. Iran. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. William Loneskie, Lauder. Donald Trump (Image: PA)Give us back our licence fee BBC Scotland boasts that Scotland gets 90% of its licence fee for funding. Given the heavy Anglo-centric bias of the BBC platforms funded by the UK-wide licence fee (BBC News 24, Radios 4 and 5 etc), why don't we have 100% of our licence fee back, and use it in Scotland to make programmes relevant to us, our history and culture? Scots traversed Europe for 500 years, then the globe for the next 300, so it need not be parochial. There is also income from BBC Commercial, which brings in a couple of billion pounds a year. Why does Scotland not share in that? GR Weir, Ochiltree. Politicising the bus pass The US Government's cackhanded launch of a 'Trump card' golden visa scheme, its promotional card bearing the visage and signature of that country's current elected head of state, conflates state functions with the personal identity of an incumbent officeholder. That sort of nonsense befits authoritarian tyrannies not democracies Sadly but somehow not surprisingly, the shambles echoes the sorry state of Scotland's bus passes. Rather than simply calling them bus passes, as happened for decades, the separatist regional government emblazons them with the crux decussata. They carry the irrelevant legend 'Saltire cards' (not even their formal name), predictably stylised without a space. English bus passes are at least more suitably named to reflect their purpose. They do bear a St George's Cross though: Scottish separatists' divisive identity politics have spread poison down south, alas. Ought one, though, to call Scotland's bus passes merely 'bus passes'? The scheme's website describes what is properly known as the national entitlement card as 'Scotland's National Smartcard', again grammatically wrong as well as ideologically questionable. In principle, enabling some local government services to be offered digitally could be a helpful move. But an overtly politicised design combined with the Orwellian whiff of identity cards introduced by the back door bear the grubby fingerprints of nationalist authoritarianism. Witness their unthinking use on buses even by primary school pupils. Christopher Ruane, Lanark.
